HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 21172 OF 2009
ORDER:
Award dated 14.02.2008 in I.D.No. 31 of 2006 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad which directed petitioner to release the increments to the 1st respondent by restoring his basic pay duly setting aside the order of Depot Manager and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction, is questioned in this Writ Petition.
2. It is the case of the Corporation that the 1st respondent was appointed as driver and his annual increments were deferred one time for his misconduct prior to the present punishment. It is stated that the 1st respondent was charge- sheeted for having driven the vehicle bearing No. AP 9Z 184 on 15.07.1996 at 08.45 hours near Maruthi Nagar X Road while operating on Route No. 100-M/R in a rash and negligent manner with lack of anticipation and poor judgment which resulted in death of a lady passenger Smt. Naramma who attempted to board the bus from front door and came into contact with front tyre of the bus which ran over her head. He was inflicted with punishment of reduction of pay by two 2 incremental stages for two years with cumulative effect by order dated 16.09.1997. The Appeal preferred thereagainst was rejected. The 1st respondent without exhausting the remedy of Review, straight away raised the present dispute before the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad wherein it was held that the punishment imposed against the 1st respondent by the Depot Manager, Dilsukhnagar was unjust and incorrect.
3. Heard learned Standing Counsel Sri Thoom Srinivas for the Corporation. He submits that the Labour Court having held that domestic enquiry is valid ought not to have interfered with the punishment and it amounts to giving premium on misconduct. He submits that when negligence on the part of the 1st respondent was established, Circular dated 21.10.1991 cannot be applied and the punishment imposed by the 1st respondent cannot be waived.
4. Heard Ms. K. Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
5. Perused the Award. The case of the 1st respondent is that the statements given by passengers as well as service conductor show that deceased was at fault and she tried to board the bus when it was in running condition. Having issued Circular stating that driver shall not be charged for the accident 3 which occurred due to passenger boarding or alighting at unauthorized places or in moving buses, the Corporation has framed the charges against the 1st respondent and later made him liable for the death of a passenger. The Criminal Court also acquitted the 1st respondent of the charger under Section 304-A IPC on finding that no valuable evidence is available. Per contra, the case of the Corporation is that Circular was issued for granting increments. The Criminal Court decision has nothing to do with the findings of the departmental enquiry. In the criminal case, he was found not guilty as witnesses failed to identify him, however, in the departmental enquiry, it was found that the 1st respondent failed to observe the passenger getting into the bus through the side view mirror and he started the bus before he received instructions from the conductor. Though he had caused fatal accident, he has not been removed from service and was given a minor punishment of deferment of two annual increments with cumulative effect.
6. In this regard, report of Joint Enquiry Committee comprising of Depot Manager, Midahni and Depot Manager, Dilsukhnagar gains importance. They found that as per the report of the Chief Inspector and also the witnesses of the accident, it is clear that the lady who died in the accident tried 4 to board the moving bus and in doing so, she lost her grip and came underneath the FNS tyre and succumbed to the injuries instantaneously. In the report, it observed that the driver had put in 13 years of service in the Organisation and this is the first fatal accident case and no other serious accident was reported earlier. The accident occurred due to carelessness on the part of passenger as she tried to board the moving bus and fell down, hence, there is no need of placing the driver under suspension. Further, the conductor, who was examined during the enquiry stated that at the relevant time, bus was carrying more passengers and there were passengers on both the foot boards and some of the passengers including lady passenger were trying to board the bus through both the doors. In such situation, it may be difficult for the driver to observe the passengers who were boarding the bus through view mirrors. In view of the above and in the light of the fact that Corporation itself noted that this is the first fatal accident reported against the 1st respondent and no other serious case was reported earlier against him, this Court is in full agreement with the Award of the Tribunal setting aside the punishment imposed by Depot Manager, Dilsukhnagar. It is also appropriate to note here that Corporation issued Circular dated 21.10.1991, in 5 clause (d), it is stated that 'in city or town services accident occurring due to passenger boarding or alighting at unauthorized places or in moving buses should not result in issue of charge sheets'.
7. Taking into consideration the overall circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that Writ Petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
8. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
9. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
-------------------------------------- NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 12th October 2023 ksld